Rusty wrote:It simply means that you believe life begins at conception.
Problem is, this isn't really a rationally defensible position. Stating the life begins at conception requires a definition of "life" that is extraordinarily peculiar, and that creates a whole host of inevitably unresolvable difficulties. Of course, there's not necessarily a link between being anti-choice and overly religious, but as the 'life and conception' position is rationally insecure, it relies upon the faith of religion to justify it.
I guess you don't really know what human pregnancy consists of or. . . any other MAMMAL for that matter.
Wikipedia gives you a crash course in pregnancy. Perhaps it would be nice if you got to know what a uterus can do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_pregnancy
Definition of life? "Life is a state that distinguishes organisms from non-living objects, such as non-life, and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism and reproduction. Some living things can communicate and many can adapt to their environment through changes originating internally. A physical characteristic of life is that it feeds on negative entropy." -wikipedia.
So what is life? Life is organisms. Humans are organisms that are manifested by growth? Check. They grow, they adapt, they strive. . . All that good shit. Check. Die? Check. All I ask of other humans is that they give newborn humans the chance to do all that, in the middle stuff, that we take for granted so often.
Are you sure some of YOU people haven't been taught christian theology? Heh. Egads! I needed to define it.
I've never heard of a non-religious pro-lifer. I suppose it's theoretically possible, but the movement is most certainly religious in nature.
Another lie perpetuated by the far left. Maybe you should get out of your bubble down there in CALIFURNURER. Might learn something new. Sure there non-religious pro-lifers.
Again, zicada, I feel sorry for you some times. Let's have another chat in private. . . Not only can we cybor without the prying eyes of Mulu but we can toast our new baby.
2. I have no idea how being a mother or father has anything to do with this. This is about giving other people the freedom to make choices about their own bodies. Why should you be allowed to impose your view that a tiny bloody lump of bio-matter is a child onto people who definitely are not ready to care for a kid once it actually evolves into one ?
1. Of course not, you're neither of the two. ;p
2. This is about freedom! Not religion. (though to some. . ) Is it fair to impose death upon a child that isn't born yet? Is it fair to burden a woman who may not be ready to raise a child? Complicated issue but. .
The woman already is alive, she has struggled and lived, doing whatever it is she does. If she honestly doesn't want a child, there is always adoption and other parents could benefit from that, even the child. If she changes her mind and wants to keep her baby, that's fine, at least she has that choice. I believe that it is important to protect the rights of those who have none in the eyes of an outspoken people who believe women have a right to kill their unborn child if it becomes a burden, physically, mentally, economically, whatever. Most states, like texas disallows for abortion after period of time at which the fetus develops. Limiting the timeframe that some women have to make that choice. To me, there is a clear difference between a egg and a fertalized egg, to others, I guess not so much. 3. You do not evolve in the womb. Evolution is entirely different, but I'm guessing that's norse-speak and you didn't really intend to mean what you say. We do 'develop' if that is what you mean. We grow rather quicky from a 'bloody lump of bio-matter' into a 'child.' If there is someone who isn't ready to care for the child, than there are most certainly others who are. Humans already have a natural process for birth control, I see no reason why an artificial one needs to be imposed.
